Friday, March 31, 2006
American League Preview
An odd imbalance has struck baseball. Arguably 5 of the best 6 teams in the majors are in the American League. The AL has swept the last two World Series and won the last six All Star games. This makes it harder to predict in both leagues as it is hard to imagine any of the top 5 teams in the AL not making the playoffs and hard to figure who the 4th team in the NL to make the playoffs should be. Here is my attempt at this year's American League.
East:
New York 93-69
Boston 89-73
Toronto 87-75
Baltimore 74-88
Tampa Bay 67-95
The Yankees and Red Sox both enter the season with more questions than in recent years. Both are dependent on the health of a small number of pitchers. The Yankees need Randy Johnson and Mariano Rivera to stay healthy. The Red Sox need Beckett, Schilling and Foulke to stay healthy. Both lineups are still terrifying although the switch of Damon to New York and the fact that the Red Sox are starting Alex Gonzalez at shortstop gives New York the more terrifying lineup for now. I think the Yankee pitchers are more likely to hold up over the course of the season but as always, it will be fun to watch.
Toronto made a host of offseason moves in an attempt to alter the fact that New York and Boston have finished 1-2 in this division for 7 straight years. The moves will help Toronto but don't go far enough to bridge the gap. Baltimore will not be the disaster some are predicting, in part because of new pitching coach Leo Mazzone. Tampa will also be improved and will score a lot of runs with a talented young lineup but their pitching is still very very bad.
Central:
Chicago 95-67
Cleveland 90-72
Minnesota 88-74
Detroit 81-81
Kansas City 58-104
Um, what happened to the worst divison in baseball? The White Sox used great pitching and considerable luck to win the World Series last year. GM Ken Williams then went and added Jim Thome and Javier Vazquez to his team and hopes to minimize the role of chance this year. Cleveland collapsed down the stretch last year obscuring a fantastic season. They've signed their young talent to long contracts so this will be a good team for a long time. The Twins shored up a weak spot at second base but it won't be enough unless Mauer and Morneau reach their potential. Detroit is underrated and would contend in the NL. Kansas City, wouldn't contend in Triple A.
West:
Oakland 95-67
LA/Anaheim 88-74
Texas 80-82
Seattle 66-96
Oakland added Frank Thomas, Milton Bradley, and Esteban Loaiza to a team that won 88 games with half seasons from its best pitcher (Harden) and player (Crosby). They get to send a message right away with a 3 game opener against the Yanks. The Angels still have Vlad and are bringing along a lot of young talent that will keep them in playoff contention for five years. This may be a transition year for them however. Texas is overmatched despite its all star infield. Seattle is overmatched despite . . . Seattle is just overmatched.
NL preview this weekend.
East:
New York 93-69
Boston 89-73
Toronto 87-75
Baltimore 74-88
Tampa Bay 67-95
The Yankees and Red Sox both enter the season with more questions than in recent years. Both are dependent on the health of a small number of pitchers. The Yankees need Randy Johnson and Mariano Rivera to stay healthy. The Red Sox need Beckett, Schilling and Foulke to stay healthy. Both lineups are still terrifying although the switch of Damon to New York and the fact that the Red Sox are starting Alex Gonzalez at shortstop gives New York the more terrifying lineup for now. I think the Yankee pitchers are more likely to hold up over the course of the season but as always, it will be fun to watch.
Toronto made a host of offseason moves in an attempt to alter the fact that New York and Boston have finished 1-2 in this division for 7 straight years. The moves will help Toronto but don't go far enough to bridge the gap. Baltimore will not be the disaster some are predicting, in part because of new pitching coach Leo Mazzone. Tampa will also be improved and will score a lot of runs with a talented young lineup but their pitching is still very very bad.
Central:
Chicago 95-67
Cleveland 90-72
Minnesota 88-74
Detroit 81-81
Kansas City 58-104
Um, what happened to the worst divison in baseball? The White Sox used great pitching and considerable luck to win the World Series last year. GM Ken Williams then went and added Jim Thome and Javier Vazquez to his team and hopes to minimize the role of chance this year. Cleveland collapsed down the stretch last year obscuring a fantastic season. They've signed their young talent to long contracts so this will be a good team for a long time. The Twins shored up a weak spot at second base but it won't be enough unless Mauer and Morneau reach their potential. Detroit is underrated and would contend in the NL. Kansas City, wouldn't contend in Triple A.
West:
Oakland 95-67
LA/Anaheim 88-74
Texas 80-82
Seattle 66-96
Oakland added Frank Thomas, Milton Bradley, and Esteban Loaiza to a team that won 88 games with half seasons from its best pitcher (Harden) and player (Crosby). They get to send a message right away with a 3 game opener against the Yanks. The Angels still have Vlad and are bringing along a lot of young talent that will keep them in playoff contention for five years. This may be a transition year for them however. Texas is overmatched despite its all star infield. Seattle is overmatched despite . . . Seattle is just overmatched.
NL preview this weekend.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Killing Daylight
Our son has reached the age where he requires constant attention and energy. He is into everything particularly those things that he is not allowed to play with such as the modem wires, the garbage can, the refrigerator, and the toilet. Childproofing is a noble venture. However while we have placed gates on the stairs, doo-hickeys in the electrical sockets, and more things at a height of four feer or higher than you could possibly imagine, complete childproofing is an impossibility.
This makes the days when the boy is home from day care a marathon. One parent has called it "killing daylight." From 7 am until 7 pm with a two hour break for a nap (on a good day), there is only one focus, keeping him amused and out of trouble so that we all survive intact until evening falls. This has led me to understand a lot of things about parenting that I previously scoffed at.
One is the excessive purchase of toys. There are very few things that hold our son's attention for more than a couple of minutes. If you divide the ten hours in the day into 5 minute segments (and 5 minutes is a very generous assumption) that is 120 things you need to distract a 15 month old. And some of the toys you buy, he won't like. On the plus side, boxes, remote controls and books can all count toward your total of 120. So you can probably get by with 100 or so toys.
Another is the immense relief felt by parents when the weather turns pleasant. You can knock an hour off with a good walk and the boy in the stroller. I have never been a person whose mood is very dependent on the weather. However after a winter of running out of things to do in the house by early afternoon and getting sick of going to the local mall, spring has new meaning to me.
Finally is the continual amazement of how single parents can succeed (and an understanding of those who have significant problems). I always understood this in theory but now I have gained a new appreciation for them. The next person who criticizes parents for putting their children in front of a television is going to receive a stern lecture from me about killing daylight.
This makes the days when the boy is home from day care a marathon. One parent has called it "killing daylight." From 7 am until 7 pm with a two hour break for a nap (on a good day), there is only one focus, keeping him amused and out of trouble so that we all survive intact until evening falls. This has led me to understand a lot of things about parenting that I previously scoffed at.
One is the excessive purchase of toys. There are very few things that hold our son's attention for more than a couple of minutes. If you divide the ten hours in the day into 5 minute segments (and 5 minutes is a very generous assumption) that is 120 things you need to distract a 15 month old. And some of the toys you buy, he won't like. On the plus side, boxes, remote controls and books can all count toward your total of 120. So you can probably get by with 100 or so toys.
Another is the immense relief felt by parents when the weather turns pleasant. You can knock an hour off with a good walk and the boy in the stroller. I have never been a person whose mood is very dependent on the weather. However after a winter of running out of things to do in the house by early afternoon and getting sick of going to the local mall, spring has new meaning to me.
Finally is the continual amazement of how single parents can succeed (and an understanding of those who have significant problems). I always understood this in theory but now I have gained a new appreciation for them. The next person who criticizes parents for putting their children in front of a television is going to receive a stern lecture from me about killing daylight.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Public Policy is Hard
Two articles in the Sunday New York Times gave me cause for depression about the extent to which government policy can achieve its objectives. Both dealt with cases of massive government policies which have at a minimum failed in their stated goals and in the case of the Iraq war, possibly made those goals even harder to achieve.
The Iraq case was highlighted for me in a review of Francis Fukuyama’s new book in which he renounces his neoconservatism. Fukuyama was a prominent advocate of using U.S. power to encourage the spread of democracy, while at the same time being skeptical of the power of government to cause large scale social change (yes they seem irreconcilable to me as well). The neocons were the intellectual force behind the Iraq war.
I objected to the Iraq war from the start but it always seemed to me that if there was any justification for it, the spread of democracy in the Middle East was the best one. I also believe that even though the war was wrong, the world would be a better place if it had better executed well (compared to how it has been executed). The review of Fukuyama’s book raised questions to me of whether such an execution was possible and the degree to which foreign policy can truly influence the affairs of other countries in the way we aspire to.
Now, I don’t know much about foreign policy but I do feel like I understand domestic policy. That’s why Orlando Patterson’s op-ed was even more depressing. Patterson is responding to a spate of recent works about how black males have fallen even further behind in our economy and the resulting calls for public policy solutions.
Patterson argues that a key cause for the failure to lift the status of black males is black culture. He cites findings like the high self-esteem of black male teenagers even as they drop out of school and head down a path to economic ruin. Patterson’s arguments are disturbingly convincing. While I believe we can do a better job of designing policies to help the less fortunate, Patterson has pointed out a crucial limit to the effectiveness of these policies.
What is less convincing (and thus particularly depressing) is Patterson’s statement that we can change culture. He does very little to suggest how this is possible. I have little doubt that the cultural problems he cites are rooted in centuries of slavery and oppression. I just don’t understand what can be done to reverse that.
While I still believe that public policy can not only make profound differences in people’s lives but that we can successfully predict the direction of those differences (in other words I’m not ready to give up and spend my days watching sports just yet), the two articles made for a depressing train ride home from Washington yesterday. I guess I should be happy that Francis Fukuyama and Orlando Patterson, both a lot smarter than I am, are thinking about these problems and maybe will come up with good answers to them.
The Iraq case was highlighted for me in a review of Francis Fukuyama’s new book in which he renounces his neoconservatism. Fukuyama was a prominent advocate of using U.S. power to encourage the spread of democracy, while at the same time being skeptical of the power of government to cause large scale social change (yes they seem irreconcilable to me as well). The neocons were the intellectual force behind the Iraq war.
I objected to the Iraq war from the start but it always seemed to me that if there was any justification for it, the spread of democracy in the Middle East was the best one. I also believe that even though the war was wrong, the world would be a better place if it had better executed well (compared to how it has been executed). The review of Fukuyama’s book raised questions to me of whether such an execution was possible and the degree to which foreign policy can truly influence the affairs of other countries in the way we aspire to.
Now, I don’t know much about foreign policy but I do feel like I understand domestic policy. That’s why Orlando Patterson’s op-ed was even more depressing. Patterson is responding to a spate of recent works about how black males have fallen even further behind in our economy and the resulting calls for public policy solutions.
Patterson argues that a key cause for the failure to lift the status of black males is black culture. He cites findings like the high self-esteem of black male teenagers even as they drop out of school and head down a path to economic ruin. Patterson’s arguments are disturbingly convincing. While I believe we can do a better job of designing policies to help the less fortunate, Patterson has pointed out a crucial limit to the effectiveness of these policies.
What is less convincing (and thus particularly depressing) is Patterson’s statement that we can change culture. He does very little to suggest how this is possible. I have little doubt that the cultural problems he cites are rooted in centuries of slavery and oppression. I just don’t understand what can be done to reverse that.
While I still believe that public policy can not only make profound differences in people’s lives but that we can successfully predict the direction of those differences (in other words I’m not ready to give up and spend my days watching sports just yet), the two articles made for a depressing train ride home from Washington yesterday. I guess I should be happy that Francis Fukuyama and Orlando Patterson, both a lot smarter than I am, are thinking about these problems and maybe will come up with good answers to them.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
EPA Rules Overturned
Still catching up on the goings-on in the real world from last week. In one of the more important recent regulatory developments, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals overturned arguably the most significant regulation issued by the Bush Administration. (An article describing the case is here and the opinion itself is here.) While the Bush Administration will appeal either to the DC Circuit en banc or to the Supreme Court, this is a significant setback for the Administration with large environmental implications.
The rules involved the question of when manufacturers (in particular utilities) can make modifications to their equipment without needing to meet stringent environmental standards. The Bush Administration argued that under the Clean Air Act a company could modify equipment as long as it cost less than 20 percent of the cost of the equipment without worrying about environmental implications.
As with many Bush policies there is a grain of reasonableness under pounds of excessive catering to industry. Because they would have to meet strict environmental rules when they modified or modernized their equipment, many companies were keeping old equipment running for much longer than they would otherwise, to the detriment of the environment.
The problem with that argument is that most of those bad decisions have already been made (including some illegal ones where companies did modify their equipment). Now much of these boilers, reactors and other equipment are near the end of their useful life and companies would have to replace them soon. The Bush EPA rule would allow firms to make major modifications, keeping the dirty equipment online for another decade or two.
The DC Circuit including arch conservative recent appointee Janice Rogers Brown offered a unanimous opinion that the Bush Administration was violating the clear language of the Clean Air Act. In an era and in a policy realm where Congress is unwilling and unable to challenge the executive branch, it is nice to know there is still some independence in the judiciary.
The rules involved the question of when manufacturers (in particular utilities) can make modifications to their equipment without needing to meet stringent environmental standards. The Bush Administration argued that under the Clean Air Act a company could modify equipment as long as it cost less than 20 percent of the cost of the equipment without worrying about environmental implications.
As with many Bush policies there is a grain of reasonableness under pounds of excessive catering to industry. Because they would have to meet strict environmental rules when they modified or modernized their equipment, many companies were keeping old equipment running for much longer than they would otherwise, to the detriment of the environment.
The problem with that argument is that most of those bad decisions have already been made (including some illegal ones where companies did modify their equipment). Now much of these boilers, reactors and other equipment are near the end of their useful life and companies would have to replace them soon. The Bush EPA rule would allow firms to make major modifications, keeping the dirty equipment online for another decade or two.
The DC Circuit including arch conservative recent appointee Janice Rogers Brown offered a unanimous opinion that the Bush Administration was violating the clear language of the Clean Air Act. In an era and in a policy realm where Congress is unwilling and unable to challenge the executive branch, it is nice to know there is still some independence in the judiciary.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Looking (far) ahead to 2008
While I was watching college basketball and stressing over my son's pinkeye, it appears as if the 2008 presidential campaign has begun. In the past few weeks, The New York Times Magazine has run cover stories on Chuck Hagel and Mark Warner, the Republicans have had their first meaningless straw poll in Tennessee, and the current President has seemed like more of a lame duck than ever.
While 99.9% of the American public has given no thought to the campaign beyond whether or not they hate Hillary Clinton, this is the time when the potential candidates need to start making trips to New Hampshire and Iowa and more importantly raising money. It was at this point in 1998 that George W. Bush began to lock up endorsements and dollars. Of course it was also at this point in 2002 that no one had heard of Howard Dean and John Kerry was considered a bit of a long shot.
For the politically inclined, the 2008 election has promise of considerable interest. For the first time since 1952 there will be neither a sitting a President or Vice President (unless Dick Cheney has a change of heart both literally and figuratively) trying to secure the nomination. For the second time since 1948, there will not be a Bush, Dole, or Nixon (unless Jeb changes his mind) on the Republican ticket.
It is of course still too early, even for those of us that follow these things avidly to make either predictions or establish preferences. The media has annointed Hillary Clinton and John McCain the frontrunners but it would not surprise me to see neither get their party's nod (Hillary strikes me as more of a front runner because the word is that her potential candidacy is already drying up money for other Democrats but as Howard Dean showed, there are many sources of money).
Roughly a year from now, the field will begin to take shape. I would expect 8-10 Democrats and 6-8 Republicans to begin the campaign as potentially serious candidates. This will stay consistent throughout 2007 and then winnow quickly in the opening months of 2008. It seems like a long time away but for those running, it is amazingly close.
While 99.9% of the American public has given no thought to the campaign beyond whether or not they hate Hillary Clinton, this is the time when the potential candidates need to start making trips to New Hampshire and Iowa and more importantly raising money. It was at this point in 1998 that George W. Bush began to lock up endorsements and dollars. Of course it was also at this point in 2002 that no one had heard of Howard Dean and John Kerry was considered a bit of a long shot.
For the politically inclined, the 2008 election has promise of considerable interest. For the first time since 1952 there will be neither a sitting a President or Vice President (unless Dick Cheney has a change of heart both literally and figuratively) trying to secure the nomination. For the second time since 1948, there will not be a Bush, Dole, or Nixon (unless Jeb changes his mind) on the Republican ticket.
It is of course still too early, even for those of us that follow these things avidly to make either predictions or establish preferences. The media has annointed Hillary Clinton and John McCain the frontrunners but it would not surprise me to see neither get their party's nod (Hillary strikes me as more of a front runner because the word is that her potential candidacy is already drying up money for other Democrats but as Howard Dean showed, there are many sources of money).
Roughly a year from now, the field will begin to take shape. I would expect 8-10 Democrats and 6-8 Republicans to begin the campaign as potentially serious candidates. This will stay consistent throughout 2007 and then winnow quickly in the opening months of 2008. It seems like a long time away but for those running, it is amazingly close.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Picking the NCAA tournament
As opposed to picking the seeds, one has a better shot at actually picking the winners in the NCAA tournament. With millions across the world playing, there is some easy money out there. Of course to pick some of that up, you need some logic, and an awful lot of luck. On the luck, you are on your own, but here is my logic:
1. Go back to the preseason polls and see who the top teams were. These are generally the teams thought to have the most talent. If some of them have slipped over the course of the year, they make nice darkhorses in March.
2. While the RPI is handy, I find two components most useful. Strength of schedule tells you well the team has been tested and average margin of victory tells you how they responded to those tests. Look at these particularly when picking 8-9 or 7-10 games.
3. Upsets are fun but the favorites usually win, particularly in the early rounds. Have some fun picking upsets but don't knock out teams more than one round before they are supposed to leave according to their seeds.
4. The seeding committee is not made up of idiots. While there will always be upsets there will always be one or two #1 seeds in the Final 4. The other finalists are very likely to be 2 or 3 seeds.
5. Finally, and this is most important, know your pool. There are three basic things you should look for when reading the rules of the pool.
5a. The size of the pool. For large online pools, you will never win by picking the favorites to win it all. Follow the above rules but have at least one prohibitive underdog making the final 4 or one #3 seed or lower winning it all.
5b. Is there an upset bonus. Many pools give you a bonus for picking upsets. Don't let this tempt you into violating rule # 3. However if you think a 5-8 seed has a decent chance of getting upset in the first round pick it and get the bonus points.
5c. Points per round. If the pool gives you 32 points for the champion then you have to get the champ right to win. Unless it is a big online pool, stay conservative with your champ. On the other hand if the pool gives you only 6 points for the champ, then the first two rounds will be key. Focus on these.
With all that, here are my picks:
Washington DC region:
UConn is the favorite in the tournament and the committee seems to have put few obstacles in their way. The other half of this bracket is soft with an over-seeded Tennessee team and a young North Carolina team. I have Connecticut beating Michigan State (rated in the top 10 in the preseason) in the regional final.
Minneapolis region:
This region had the most teams that tempted me. Villanova, Florida, and Ohio State all have great resumes. Boston College has become a hot pick by the experts and Oklahoma has a lot of talent. In the end I went with Villanova over Florida in the regional final but it wouldn't surprise me to see any of these teams make it.
Atlanta region:
There is a lot of talk about how this is the toughest region but I don't see it stacking up to Minneapolis. Duke and Texas stand heads above the crowd and the only question is which one will win the region. I chose Texas for the highly scientific reason that I really don't like Duke.
Oakland region:
This is by far the weakest region and therefore a hard one to pick. I could see Memphis, UCLA, Indiana, Kansas and Pittsburgh all cutting down the nets here. Despite being a # 1 seed and playing a pretty strong schedule, Memphis is not getting the respect. Hoping that few others will choose them I went with Coach Calipari's Tigers.
There you have it. Don't take any of this too seriously when a miracle last minute shot happens and your team is knocked out. Just sit back and enjoy four of the best sports days of the year.
1. Go back to the preseason polls and see who the top teams were. These are generally the teams thought to have the most talent. If some of them have slipped over the course of the year, they make nice darkhorses in March.
2. While the RPI is handy, I find two components most useful. Strength of schedule tells you well the team has been tested and average margin of victory tells you how they responded to those tests. Look at these particularly when picking 8-9 or 7-10 games.
3. Upsets are fun but the favorites usually win, particularly in the early rounds. Have some fun picking upsets but don't knock out teams more than one round before they are supposed to leave according to their seeds.
4. The seeding committee is not made up of idiots. While there will always be upsets there will always be one or two #1 seeds in the Final 4. The other finalists are very likely to be 2 or 3 seeds.
5. Finally, and this is most important, know your pool. There are three basic things you should look for when reading the rules of the pool.
5a. The size of the pool. For large online pools, you will never win by picking the favorites to win it all. Follow the above rules but have at least one prohibitive underdog making the final 4 or one #3 seed or lower winning it all.
5b. Is there an upset bonus. Many pools give you a bonus for picking upsets. Don't let this tempt you into violating rule # 3. However if you think a 5-8 seed has a decent chance of getting upset in the first round pick it and get the bonus points.
5c. Points per round. If the pool gives you 32 points for the champion then you have to get the champ right to win. Unless it is a big online pool, stay conservative with your champ. On the other hand if the pool gives you only 6 points for the champ, then the first two rounds will be key. Focus on these.
With all that, here are my picks:
Washington DC region:
UConn is the favorite in the tournament and the committee seems to have put few obstacles in their way. The other half of this bracket is soft with an over-seeded Tennessee team and a young North Carolina team. I have Connecticut beating Michigan State (rated in the top 10 in the preseason) in the regional final.
Minneapolis region:
This region had the most teams that tempted me. Villanova, Florida, and Ohio State all have great resumes. Boston College has become a hot pick by the experts and Oklahoma has a lot of talent. In the end I went with Villanova over Florida in the regional final but it wouldn't surprise me to see any of these teams make it.
Atlanta region:
There is a lot of talk about how this is the toughest region but I don't see it stacking up to Minneapolis. Duke and Texas stand heads above the crowd and the only question is which one will win the region. I chose Texas for the highly scientific reason that I really don't like Duke.
Oakland region:
This is by far the weakest region and therefore a hard one to pick. I could see Memphis, UCLA, Indiana, Kansas and Pittsburgh all cutting down the nets here. Despite being a # 1 seed and playing a pretty strong schedule, Memphis is not getting the respect. Hoping that few others will choose them I went with Coach Calipari's Tigers.
There you have it. Don't take any of this too seriously when a miracle last minute shot happens and your team is knocked out. Just sit back and enjoy four of the best sports days of the year.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Planting the Seeds
Picking the NCAA brackets is a fool's errand since one is trying to guess the result of a deliberative process between 8 people who nobody knows. Still it's fun so here goes an attempt at the top 16 seeds:
Washington DC region
Duke
UCLA
Pittsburgh
Iowa
Atlanta region
Memphis
Texas
LSU
Boston College
Minneapolis region
Villanova
Ohio State
Tennessee
Florida
Oakland Region
Connecticut
Gonzaga
North Carolina
Illinois
Washington DC region
Duke
UCLA
Pittsburgh
Iowa
Atlanta region
Memphis
Texas
LSU
Boston College
Minneapolis region
Villanova
Ohio State
Tennessee
Florida
Oakland Region
Connecticut
Gonzaga
North Carolina
Illinois
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Bonds and Puckett
March is the best month of the year for sports fans in my book. Spring training and the NCAA tournament make it unlike any other time of year, even October. I was getting ready for a couple of posts on the NCAAs as this blog takes its yearly detour toward mostly sports for a month. Then two baseball related stories captured front pages, not just in the sports section.
Kirby Puckett joined the Twins in 1984. Two years later, Barry Bonds joined the Pirates. After his twelfth season Puckett was forced to retire with a .318 batting average and 207 home runs. After his twelfth season, Barry Bonds was on his way to all time great numbers with 374 home runs. In retrospect, baseball would have been better off if Bonds had been forced to retire at this point as well.
While Puckett moved on to the Hall of Fame in 2001, Bonds, according to a new book released this week, moved on to steroids in 1998. Jealous of the attention given to Mark McGwire when he chased the home run record, it was not enough for Bonds to be one of the ten best outfielders of all time. He had to be #1 and over the next five years he put more drugs in his body than Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, and Jimi Hendrix combined. The drugs "worked" and he hit 73 home runs in 2001, the year Puckett entered the Hall.
Puckett was no saint, his post-baseball career was dogged by allegations of sexual abuse. But on the field he represented everything that is good about baseball. His long career was spent entirely in the small market of Minnesota and he exuded a love of the game that was infectious. His exploits in Game 6 of the 1991 World Series will never be forgotten by anyone who has seen them, including this fan. As this writeup by the most statistics oriented folks in the business shows, Puckett was that rare great player whose full worth can't be measured.
Whether Bonds retires in the next few weeks, as I suspect he might, or after this season as he has maintained, he leaves baseball with fans feeling as hostile to him as they feel warm towards Puckett. I tend to think that Bonds will eventually join Puckett in the Hall of Fame, although I am less sure than I was two weeks ago. In the end though it doesn't matter. Bonds is forever synonomous now with cheating, steroid use, and ego. No matter how many home runs he hits, he will never catch Puckett in the respect and love of fans. RIP Kirby.
Kirby Puckett joined the Twins in 1984. Two years later, Barry Bonds joined the Pirates. After his twelfth season Puckett was forced to retire with a .318 batting average and 207 home runs. After his twelfth season, Barry Bonds was on his way to all time great numbers with 374 home runs. In retrospect, baseball would have been better off if Bonds had been forced to retire at this point as well.
While Puckett moved on to the Hall of Fame in 2001, Bonds, according to a new book released this week, moved on to steroids in 1998. Jealous of the attention given to Mark McGwire when he chased the home run record, it was not enough for Bonds to be one of the ten best outfielders of all time. He had to be #1 and over the next five years he put more drugs in his body than Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, and Jimi Hendrix combined. The drugs "worked" and he hit 73 home runs in 2001, the year Puckett entered the Hall.
Puckett was no saint, his post-baseball career was dogged by allegations of sexual abuse. But on the field he represented everything that is good about baseball. His long career was spent entirely in the small market of Minnesota and he exuded a love of the game that was infectious. His exploits in Game 6 of the 1991 World Series will never be forgotten by anyone who has seen them, including this fan. As this writeup by the most statistics oriented folks in the business shows, Puckett was that rare great player whose full worth can't be measured.
Whether Bonds retires in the next few weeks, as I suspect he might, or after this season as he has maintained, he leaves baseball with fans feeling as hostile to him as they feel warm towards Puckett. I tend to think that Bonds will eventually join Puckett in the Hall of Fame, although I am less sure than I was two weeks ago. In the end though it doesn't matter. Bonds is forever synonomous now with cheating, steroid use, and ego. No matter how many home runs he hits, he will never catch Puckett in the respect and love of fans. RIP Kirby.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Enforcement and Mine Safety
Enforcement of federal regulations is often the last step in the policymaking process. While I've noted the limited attention that the writing of regulations gets, enforcement gets even less. That's why it struck me to see this on the front page of the Times yesterday. Only a disaster like the deaths at the Sago mine in January can bring media attention to regulatory enforcement.
There is no question that federal inspectors, whether they be from the IRS, EPA or Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) can be unreasonable and heavy handed. Business reaction to such unreasonableness helped fuel the anti-regulatory fervor of the 1980s. We are now in our third decade however of the reaction to federal excesses in the 1970s and this article provides one more piece of evidence that the pendulum may have swung too far.
When a government spokesman can say in the face of the worst mine disaster in years, that low fines, cooperation with industry, and allowing mines that don't even pay their fines to remain open are part of a successful cooperative approach, then it is time to take stock.
While members of Congress like Lynn Woolsey are correct to express exasperation with the administration, their power to do much is limited. This is evidence # 654 as to why elections matter and politics matters. A different President would lead enforcement much differently than this one (they might not pursue doctors who prescribe medical marijuana but they would pursue mines with unsafe conditions). A different Congress would open investigations and have at least a small chance of making a difference in executive branch policy. And while it may be hyperbole to assert that different political leaders would have saved the lives of the Sago miners, it may not be.
There is no question that federal inspectors, whether they be from the IRS, EPA or Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) can be unreasonable and heavy handed. Business reaction to such unreasonableness helped fuel the anti-regulatory fervor of the 1980s. We are now in our third decade however of the reaction to federal excesses in the 1970s and this article provides one more piece of evidence that the pendulum may have swung too far.
When a government spokesman can say in the face of the worst mine disaster in years, that low fines, cooperation with industry, and allowing mines that don't even pay their fines to remain open are part of a successful cooperative approach, then it is time to take stock.
While members of Congress like Lynn Woolsey are correct to express exasperation with the administration, their power to do much is limited. This is evidence # 654 as to why elections matter and politics matters. A different President would lead enforcement much differently than this one (they might not pursue doctors who prescribe medical marijuana but they would pursue mines with unsafe conditions). A different Congress would open investigations and have at least a small chance of making a difference in executive branch policy. And while it may be hyperbole to assert that different political leaders would have saved the lives of the Sago miners, it may not be.
